I have viewed your
sites (Florida and California) and find the intent being admirable
and truly necessary. However, your goal... even if successful, will
come to a shocking revelation. The U.S. Congress in 1996 amended the
Civil Rights Acts (42 USC Sec. 1983 and 42 USC Sec. 1988) to extend
immunity to judicial officials. With these laws in place, your
enactment of a state constitutional amendment would be voided under
the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as long as the accused
were acting in their judicial capacity.

--Manny Machado,
Jr,

(See string
of messages below)

Dear Manny:

This is Barbie writing,
to try to clarify a few things. First, I thank you for your
good-faith effort to warn us about possible shortcomings of J.A.I.L.
I appreciate your desire to want to be of help to this
cause.

I presume that you have
read the J.A.I.L. Initiative. You will note that the reason stated
for the need for J.A.I.L. is based on the judge-made doctrine of
judicial immunity, and more specifically its abuse. "We, the People
of California, find that the doctrine of judicial immunity has been
greatly abused, and when judges abuse their power, the people are
obliged - it is their duty - to correct that injury, for the benefit
of themselves and their posterity. ..."

In my research of
judicial immunity, I found that it was created by judges so they
wouldn't have to answer to every lawsuit against a judge, because
they said it was usually the result of disgruntled litigants not
"liking" the decision against them. Judges call these kinds of
complaints "frivolous" (a term that has greatly outgrown its
usefulness), and judicial immunity was designed to protect judges
against "frivolous lawsuits" against them. It was said that if judges
had to attend to the thousands of such lawsuits, they wouldn't have
time to attend to their regular cases, and it would "chill the ardor"
of strong decisionmaking (I believe that's the term used by the
Supreme Court justifying the need for J.I.). Sorry, I don't have my
legal authorities readily available to cite here. (Bradley v. Fisher;
Stump v. Sparkman; I don't have the cites off hand-- and there are
other cases).

But suffice it to say,
judicial immunity became a very jealously guarded doctrine by the
courts-- so much so that when §1983 says "Every person," the Supreme
Court decided that in order for that to have been intended to include
judicial officers, Congress had to specifically so state in the
statute (every person, including judges) to show its intent,
otherwise without Congress specifically spelling it out, the SC
decided that such was not its intent. My question is, was there a
conflict of interest here???

The thing to remember,
Manny, is that judicial immunity is NOT law. It does not appear in
the Constitution, nor could it because that
doctrine actually operates against
Constitutional principles. When first created, the doctrine was well
taken by the courts because they saw a need for judges to be
protected from harrasing lawsuits. There were certain limitations
placed on the use of judicial immunity so that judges would not be
placed above the law. However, as time went on, judges found that
doctrine to be very comfortable for them, and soon it was applied
across the board for any judicial conduct, unless it was so egregious
that it caused embarrassment to the system, especially if the conduct
was reported in the media. It is my opinion that this doctrine lies
at the base of judges disregarding the law and the facts-- in other
words, disregarding the right of redress of grievances. They may do
so with impunity. That's the impetus of J.A.I.L. Judges must be held
accountable to the people for their actions.

One of our California
JAILers, John Wolfgram, wrote an excellent law review article called
"How the Judiciary Stole the Right of Petition." I had written
a J.A.I.L. News Journal about four months ago on this subject. Yes,
our judiciary stole our right of petition
by the abuse of the doctrine of judicial immunity. Judicial immunity
actually blocks that fundamental right protected by the First
Amendment of the Constitution. Examining any of the constitutional
amendments, or other provisions, together with the doctrine of
judicial immunity or any "law" relating thereto, which law
prevails?

Manny, you said (see
below) "be it understood that any
action in a state court which brings a judge into question will
also evoke the Supremacy Clause... as it is "the law of the
land."You quoted the supremacy clause which states it is
the U.S. Constitution and laws made in pursuance
thereof. Where is judicial immunity found in the
Constitution? Are any "laws" enforcing judicial immunity, laws
"made in pursuance" of the Constitution? Are you saying that a
state judge may not be brought into question according to the
Constitution? Please clarify why you made that statement.
I'm not saying you're wrong-- I just don't understand how that could
be true.

It is my understanding
that the Constitution was written to protect the
People-- not government officials:
executive, legislative, and judicial. The Constitution
limits government officials, and it
certainly doesn't release judicial officials from those limitations
and mandates by the use of judicial immunity. I would have to
conclude that judicial immunity, or any government immunity that gets
in the way of performing their duties under constitutional precepts,
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Anything that blocks constitutional
practice and procedure cannot be constitutional. Manny, where
am I misunderstanding something? Maybe I am, so please tell
me.

You suggest that"It is my belief that your tact should include
a move, by petition, to rescind the existing federal laws protecting
judicial officials. This would give judicial validity to your current
course of action..."

Manny, that won't be
necessary because any laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are
null and void. As I said, I believe the Constitution exists for the
protection of the People-- not protection of
judicial officials.

J.A.I.L. is built on that
premise.

Assuming you are sincere
in wanting to warn us about any shortcomings of the J.A.I.L.
Initiative or legislation, we welcome your input and appreciate the
opportunity of discussing this matter with you. It is our hope that
we can all learn from it.

My intent is not to throw a monkey wrench
into the efforts of Jail4Judges. My intent is to enlighten so
that the efforts of this group will not be in vain!!!
Jail4Judges' mandate is, at present, focused on... approaching
the individual states for a constitutional amendment.
However... this single approach will lead to ineffective
redress... relying here on the U.S. Constitution - Article VI,
Cl. 2 citing:

U.S.
Constitution: Article
VI - Clause.
II. [Pertinent Part ]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

Based upon this citation... do you believe my
premise incorrect??? Taking it further... I will address
your assumption which provided: "Congress did not 'amend' the
federal Civil Rights Acts." So... for those not wishing to
follow up and review the statutory provisions... here they
are:

Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation
of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation,custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or

the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person

within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution

and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action

at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress,

except that in any action brought against a judicial officer

for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial

capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a

declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was

unavailable.For the purposes of this section, any Act of

Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia

shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

AMENDMENTS

1996 - Pub. L. 104-317 inserted before period at end of first

sentence '', except that in any action brought against a judicial

officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial

capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a

declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was

unavailable''.

Section 1988.
Proceedings in vindication of civil rights

(b) Attorney's fees

In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of

sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this

title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.),

the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C.

2000bb et seq.), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.), title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or

section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may

allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a

reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in

any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or

omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such officer

shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney's

fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's

jurisdiction.

AMENDMENTS

1996 - Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104-317 inserted before period at

end '', except that in any action brought against a judicial

officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial

capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs,

including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in

excess of such officer's jurisdiction."

See:

U.S. Supreme Court - PULLIAM v. ALLEN, 466
U.S.
522 (1984)
this case started the amendment process - see case language as it
provided the content of the amendments.

Further... all of your citations predate the amendments...
which will result in their inapplicability after the
enactment of the amendments stated above. And... be it
understood that any action in a state court which brings a
judge into question will also evoke the Supremacy
Clause... as it is "the law of the land."

Now... are my assumptions "wrong" or "based on wrong
statements of law???" Until recently... I spent
more than 27 years advocating for the rights and
benefits of veterans and other disabled persons. I have
been schooled in the law and applied that schooling before
many tribunals. Yet not once has even a judge indicated that
my actions were predicated upon false statements or that
I was working against any group to thwart its efforts. I
resent your statements in this regard... especially since you
did not bother to research the basis of my writing!!!
And... I do apologize for not preparing a legal treatise,
with appropriate citations. I was not aware I would be
submitting to a tribunal where my rights or liberties were at
stake.

First of all,Congress did not "amend" the federal
Civil Rights Acts(42 USC Sec.
1983 and 42 USC Sec. 1988) to extend immunity to judicial
officials. The Supreme Court itself simply decided
(prior to that) that Judges would be allowed immunity because
Congress did not explicitly state otherwise.
Congress can enact civil rights legislation (such as a
Federal JAIL Act)that would enable citizens to hold Judges
accountable for their violations of the Constitution, but has
not done so in a sufficiently explicit manner to overcome the
Supreme Court's decision to afford Judicial immunity from
suit under 42 USC Sec. 1983 and 42 USC Sec.
1988.

Secondly, "judicial immunity" from suit
under 42 USC Sec. 1983 and 42 USC Sec. 1988, is not the same
as judicial immunity from suits brought under state Law in
the state courts. Each state has the authority to
control its own officers (judges) and would have the
sovereign power to enact a law providing for the punishment
(civil and criminal) of its officers, including judges.
It would be highly doubtful that Congress could claim any
power to interfere with the state's exercise of its sovereign
power to control and punish its judicial officers, other than
to insure that Judges, as persons, receive the benefit of Due
Process of Law.

"In the following cases, courts have found that the judges
acted outside of their judicial capacity and were not
entitled to immunity: Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 108
S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988)(state court judge did not
have absolute immunity from damages suit under S 1983 for
his decision to demote and dismiss a probation officer);
Morrison v. Lipscomb, 877 F.2d 463 (6th Cir.1989)(state
court judge was not entitled to judicial immunity in
connection with order declaring moratorium on issuance of
writs of restitution from December 15 through January 2, as
judge was acting in administrative and not judicial
capacity); King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 968 (6th Cir.),
cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971, 106 S.Ct. 351, 88 L.Ed.2d 320
(1985)(although setting bond on an arrest warrant is a
judicial act, the act of deliberately misleading the police
officer who was to execute the warrant about the identity
of the person sought was nonjudicial); Sevier v. Turner,
742 F.2d 262 (6th Cir.1984)(juvenile court judge's
initiation of criminal prosecution and civil contempt
proceeding against father for child support in arrears
constituted nonjudicial acts); New Alaska Development
Corporation v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298 (9th
Cir.1988)(receiver appointed by state court to manage
business assets of an estate was entitled to absolute
derivative judicial immunity, but receiver was not
absolutely immune from allegations that he stole assets or
slandered parties, as such alleged acts were not judicial);
Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
454 U.S. 816, 102 S.Ct. 93, 70 L.Ed.2d 85 (1981)(holding a
contempt proceeding and ordering plaintiff incarcerated
were not judicial acts where controversy that led to
incarceration did not center around any matter pending
before the judge, but around domestic problems of plaintiff
former wife who worked at the courthouse); Harris v.
Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S.
938, 100 S.Ct. 1331, 63 L.Ed.2d 772 (1980)(allegedly
repeated communications to the press and city officials
which were critical of police lieutenant, and the improper
instigation of criminal proceedings against the lieutenant
by judge as part of a racial campaign to discredit
lieutenant were not judicial acts)." http://www.perkel.com/pbl/immune.htm

"This court also has held that the
initiation of accusatory processes, such as criminal
prosecutions or civil contempt proceedings, is a non-judicial
act that may subject a judge to liability. Sevier v. Turner,
742 F.2d 262, 272 (6th Cir.1984). However, recently, in
Barnes, we explained that the exception to absolute immunity,
when a judge engages in a purely prosecutorial function, is a
narrow one; and, even if the judge encroaches upon
prosecutorial functions, the *334 broad shield of absolute
immunity is not automatically overcome. 105 F.3d at
1118-119." http://www.perkel.com/pbl/immune.htm

Other immunities,
granted by the courts to other types of officers, are not as
extensive as the "judicial" immunity afforded by judges to
judges:

"I am sure you have heard ELECTED and
APPOINTED officials say, they have immunity from
prosecution for any thing they have done wrong. Prosecutors
and police officers are notorious for that statement. There
is a U.S. Supreme Court case that says they are liable.
George D Owen V. City of Independence, Missouri. Decided
April 16, 1980. When you look this up scroll down to 25 See,
e.g., Globe 365 (remarks of Rep. Arthur) (For Owen v
Independence Click (HERE)"

Thus, Mr. Machado's arguments and
conclusions, which are based on wrong statements of the law,
are themsleves wrong. The complete absense of any links
to cases or statutory language to support Mr. Machado's
arguments suggests that he is either relying upon hearsay
from other uninformed people, or that he is deliberately
misrepresenting the issue. Either way, he is wrong, and
one has to wonder why he, or whoever he is
repeating, went out of his way to interject this false
roadblock to the JAIL movement?

I have viewed your sites (Florida and California) and find
the intent being admirable and truly necessary. However,
your goal... even if successful, will come to a shocking
revelation. The U.S. Congress in 1996 amended the Civil
Rights Acts (42 USC Sec. 1983 and 42 USC Sec. 1988) to
extend immunity to judicial officials. There are some
minimal exceptions that essentially mean total immunity for
judicial officials.

With these laws in place, your enactment of a state
constitutional amendment would be voided under the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as long as the
accused were acting in their judicial capacity.

I have attached an article or informational writing which
shows the extent of judicial misconduct in
Connecticut. However... I have found like actions in a
great number of other, states given the same subject
matter.

It is my belief that your tact should include a move, by
petition, to rescind the existing federal laws protecting
judicial officials. This would give judicial validity to
your current course of action, but beware, it will be an
uphill battle. One that should perhaps contain a class
action suit to address the validity of the federal
amendments. Does Congress have the authority under the
Constitution to place any citizen above the law???

I would appreciate your comments.
Manny

Ron Branson's
Response:

Dear Manny:

Thank you for your input re the
J.A.I.L. plan of action. As you know, according to the
U.S. Constitution, state's rights are superior to that of
federal mandates. (See the 10th Amendment).

Further, amendments by
Congress to Title 42, Sec. 1983 cannot grant
strength to an act that ultimately violates the
rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution.
For instance, how can Congress constitutionally place
redress of grievance against judges out of the reach of
the people when they are guaranteed that right by the
First Amendment of the Constitution, to wit, the
right to "petition the government for a redress of
grievances?" Are we to conclude that the federal
judiciary is therefore not one of the Branches of
government?

"The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the
... people." Can anyone establish from the
Constitution that the people delegated to the United
States the powers to make any part of itself immune
from the people? I'm from Missouri. Show
me! I have just reread Article III of the U.S.
Constitution, and I find nothing that hints of the
authority of Congress to grant to federal judges judicial
immunity. Where's even the hint of such a thing?

Even common sense tells you that
judges, state or federal, cannot be beyond the reach of
the people by judicial immunity. If Congress passed a law
saying the U.S. Constitution is hereby suspended, would
the Constitution thereby be suspended? Authority,
please! Redress is more than a right protected by
the U.S. Constitution, but an inalienable right granted
by God. Can Congress, or the Federal Courts, suspend
God out of the question? Can they suspend gravity while
they are at it? Command the sun that it shine not?
or the waves of the sea to be calm?

J.A.I.L.= Judicial Accountability Initiative Law -
href="../../State_Chapters/dc/DC_initiative.doc">www.jail4judges.org
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore
unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! AddRemove@jail4judges.org
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at JAIL_SALE_USA-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Send donations to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603

"Those who say it cannot be done should not
interfere with those of us who are doing
it."
--S. Hickman

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel
Adams

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the
root."
-- Henry David Thoreau